To be fair, we have more than 30 years of Lucas-led LFL history to reflect upon. The modern-era LFL to me, really started in the spring of 2014 with the announcement of the EU reset and the beginning of the filming of TFA. It's also permissible to equally appreciate both eras.

Actually around 45 years of LFL. LFL came into existence with American Graffiti. That's 1973. SW came out 5 years later.

To be fair, we have more than 30 years of Lucas-led LFL history to reflect upon. The modern-era LFL to me, really started in the spring of 2014 with the announcement of the EU reset and the beginning of the filming of TFA. It's also permissible to equally appreciate both eras.

Freezus wrote:

Actually around 45 years of LFL. LFL came into existence with American Graffiti. That's 1973. SW came out 5 years later.

Absolutely loved Rogue One. Seen it four times so far and plan on seeing it again!The story was great - really enjoyed it. If this is the benchmark for the standalones, I hope they can either match or surpass this effort.All the new characters were fantastic and the standouts for me were; Saw Gererra, CG Tarkin (Brilliant!) and of course, Darth Fucking Vader!

As a kid who grew up on the originals, seeing Vader annihilating Rebel Troopers had me all choked up.Was very happy with the inclusion of PT Mon Mothma, Jimmy Smits' Bail Organa and Mustafar/Vader's Castle.Really impressed with the way they utilised unused footage from ANH (Red Leader etc)Loved the nods to Rebels too - and that last shot of Leia is now more precious than ever.

I really enjoyed it a lot more than the TFA. Tarkin wasn't 100% but I still thoroughly enjoyed his reappearance as did I with all the rebel pilots and era specific costumes and hair styles. Lot's of excellent details that left me wanting MORE which is something I did not feel with TFA. I absolutely loved the varied environments that felt unique and memorable unlike TFA. The space battle brought back memories of playing Rogue Squadron and the characters were enjoyable in their own ways. I think this movie benefited greatly from the lack of Jedi action even though Vader was absolutely badass slaughtering rebels. I didn't care for the soundtrack all that much, though I didn't like TFA's soundtrack either.

- I cannot see how anyone can rate this film above any of the past seven films. While it's "good'. The crafting of the film is out of line with the other film's style and rhythm (and I don't mean the shaky cam cinematography or gritty look). I-VII are operatic and so musically oriented that you can watch them over and over like listening to a good album.

What does the film's style being different than the other seven mean about its quality? Should similarity to the other seven films be a criteria for judging this film? I don't think so - it's a standalone.

I think this movie is absolutely in the second tier of Star Wars films. (Tier 1: 4 & 5 belong by themselves; Tier 2: 3, 6, 7 are all good; Tier 3: 1 & 2 have some serious flaws, though both still enjoyable).

I went in with very low expectations and knew almost nothing about it, and I came out thrilled. The characters were well written, the acting was mostly quite good, it was tense, the story and purpose was clear at every point, and moved along briskly. It was a nice heist film set against the backdrop of war. It is not nearly as fun as Force Awakens, and not nearly as epic as ROTJ, but judging it as a standalone, it was probably executed better than both of those films (or at least on par). I think the dialogue fell flat in places, but other than that, I have very few complaints.

I also think the Tarkin CG was incredible. I did not know he was going to be in it going in advance, and I was confused AF when I first saw him because he looked photoreal to me. Leia I thought was not effective. Ironically a textured, wrinkled Tarkin is easier to make look believable than Carrie Fisher's pristine 19 year old face.

And the Vader massacre at the end was a very rewarding scene to watch. I know that sounds a little bit perverse considering he's slaughtering rebels. But, let's face it, this is the Vader we've always wanted to see.

Secondly, nowhere in the films does it state that the imperial walkers in TESB have heavier armour than their predesesors. Whilst of course that's quite possible within the SW fictional world, any gap in logic or any inconsistency can be explained away with that wave of hand, but ultimately it's bad writing, IMO, just like the continuity issue created by the Tantive IV at the end.

pnag11 wrote:

Not singling out your post, but it was the one handiest to quote.

I'm kind of astonished at the fans talking about weak AT-ATs. They weren't AT-ATs! They're AT-ACTs - container carrying versions. Their sides are bright orange, less guns, and yes, less armour. They're taller too - bigger stride, but more 'spindly'.

So, the walker stuff is easily explained. Also, as regards the Tantive IV, there are many red livery Corellian corvettes. If she used a different transponder, as the Falcon does for different name ID, problem solved.

It doesn't state in the film that they are inferior versions. Indeed, the entire iconography of them in R1 is founded on their appearance in TESB e.g the way they are established with their sound (otherwise why use them at all in R1 when they could have used a completely other vehicle/design right???). Films should not really require ancillary material to explain internal logic.

And you stating "doh... it's all explained in a comic/back of a cereal packet" is just a lazy defence of a perfectly reasonable critism of a small element (same applies for the reasoning for the Tantive IV scene). And indeed, rather than just replying with a "yup I get that criticism, but it wasn't a problem for me", you are just perpetuating it with this "no your critism is wrong cos it was explained on Twitter" stuff. It's a criticism of the film which I otherwise enjoyed...

For me... it makes sense by looking at them. They are different, the cargo hold being removable will make for weakened areas. The heads are different, they seem to be taller, have a different purpose, on a different planet, being shot by different weapons... not sure whats so confusing here. The snowspeeder pilots obviously thought they could damage the Hoth At-Ats or they would not have tried shooting at them. It was only after the initial plan was commenced that they realized "that armor is too strong for blasters" so they went with the tow cables. Re purposing other fighters would take too long. Im sure on the battle of Jakku, they changed things up.

I'd say among the nerds on this board, I'm probably one of the pickiest when it comes to continuity and breaks in story logic. This is not a case of lazy writing, or a failure in world building. It was clear to me, both visually and in name, that the AT-ACTS are different than AT-ATs and therefore their armaments or armour should not be compared 1:1 to the walkers of ESB.

There are real world examples of this: a BMW 5 series and an M5 are similar looking cars, but one is supercharged. Why can't Imperial walkers have different strengths based on need? The Rogue One vehicles clearly looked like haulers rather than assault walkers.

Or, you know, the filmmaker just thought it would look cool to see a walker being blown up in his movie. No need to rely on ancillary information and our own speculation to justify a bit of fan wank. Fan wank has its place, but in this instance I don't believe it served any purpose other than to induce a sense of "ooh look an imperial walker".. "ooh look an imperial walker being blown up... cool". Again, these things have their place, but Rogue One's use of them stopped what was a fun movie becoming a really good one. The walkers is a smaller example of the same thing, which was a tad too much fan service - as I thought the inclusion of Tarkin and Vader (as great as it was to see them) actually took away from other characters (Krennic being the main loser)... In my opinion of course...

I agree Krennic was under-served. I have a feeling the cutting room floor is the culprit. It also appears many of the walker scenes were cut. I had the feeling that the base was ill prepared for that type of assault and once Krennic realizes whats going on, everyone else is in panic mode. The walkers were doing some other job and suddenly had to start firing on soldiers. I dont need a movie to explain every little detail. I like to fill in the blanks with my imagination... I thought that was the point.

How do spaceships in SW fly in space? its totally impossible to bank like that... director must think its cool to have spaceships fly like airplanes.

Or, you know, the filmmaker just thought it would look cool to see a walker being blown up in his movie. No need to rely on ancillary information and our own speculation to justify a bit of fan wank. Fan wank has its place, but in this instance I don't believe it served any purpose other than to induce a sense of "ooh look an imperial walker".. "ooh look an imperial walker being blown up... cool". Again, these things have their place, but Rogue One's use of them stopped what was a fun movie becoming a really good one. The walkers is a smaller example of the same thing, which was a tad too much fan service - as I thought the inclusion of Tarkin and Vader (as great as it was to see them) actually took away from other characters (Krennic being the main loser)... In my opinion of course...

I don't think it's "fan wank" to use a known enemy vehicle to present a challenge for the good guys. The writers needed something to put the heroes on the ground in a bind before taking the battle to the next stage; walkers were a tool to do so. In fact, since we know imperial walkers are typically problematic for ground forces, it heightens the sense of peril and makes the X-wings' intervention more heroic. No other ancillary information is required to make this work.

Fan service is the inclusion of characters or events (usually unnecessary to the main story) in an effort satisfy fan fantasies. It's not like fans were dying to see another imperial walker battle - we've got our fix there. Seeing Vader plow through a hallway of rebel soldiers is fan service.

- I cannot see how anyone can rate this film above any of the past seven films. While it's "good'. The crafting of the film is out of line with the other film's style and rhythm (and I don't mean the shaky cam cinematography or gritty look). I-VII are operatic and so musically oriented that you can watch them over and over like listening to a good album.

MannyOrtez wrote:

What does the film's style being different than the other seven mean about its quality? Should similarity to the other seven films be a criteria for judging this film? I don't think so - it's a standalone.

I think this movie is absolutely in the second tier of Star Wars films. (Tier 1: 4 & 5 belong by themselves; Tier 2: 3, 6, 7 are all good; Tier 3: 1 & 2 have some serious flaws, though both still enjoyable).

I went in with very low expectations and knew almost nothing about it, and I came out thrilled. The characters were well written, the acting was mostly quite good, it was tense, the story and purpose was clear at every point, and moved along briskly. It was a nice heist film set against the backdrop of war. It is not nearly as fun as Force Awakens, and not nearly as epic as ROTJ, but judging it as a standalone, it was probably executed better than both of those films (or at least on par). I think the dialogue fell flat in places, but other than that, I have very few complaints.

I also think the Tarkin CG was incredible. I did not know he was going to be in it going in advance, and I was confused AF when I first saw him because he looked photoreal to me. Leia I thought was not effective. Ironically a textured, wrinkled Tarkin is easier to make look believable than Carrie Fisher's pristine 19 year old face.

And the Vader massacre at the end was a very rewarding scene to watch. I know that sounds a little bit perverse considering he's slaughtering rebels. But, let's face it, this is the Vader we've always wanted to see.

Sorry, I would put this film as the third of tier 3, I think it's pacing and and action sequences are equal in quantity to I and II , but not cinematic quality.

It does not have to meet any similarities with I-VII, but I do not think it is as well a crafted film. As I stated, it's a story made into a SW film and not great cinema that serves a SW story.

On a more redeeming/hopeful note, this is the first stand alone film, so there is a learning curve for LF in regard to this series.

Or, you know, the filmmaker just thought it would look cool to see a walker being blown up in his movie. No need to rely on ancillary information and our own speculation to justify a bit of fan wank. Fan wank has its place, but in this instance I don't believe it served any purpose other than to induce a sense of "ooh look an imperial walker".. "ooh look an imperial walker being blown up... cool". Again, these things have their place, but Rogue One's use of them stopped what was a fun movie becoming a really good one. The walkers is a smaller example of the same thing, which was a tad too much fan service - as I thought the inclusion of Tarkin and Vader (as great as it was to see them) actually took away from other characters (Krennic being the main loser)... In my opinion of course...

CoGro wrote:

don't think it's "fan wank" to use a known enemy vehicle to present a challenge for the good guys. The writers needed something to put the heroes on the ground in a bind before taking the battle to the next stage; walkers were a tool to do so. In fact, since we know imperial walkers are typically problematic for ground forces, it heightens the sense of peril and makes the X-wings' intervention more heroic. No other ancillary information is required to make this work.

Fan service is the inclusion of characters or events (usually unnecessary to the main story) in an effort satisfy fan fantasies. It's not like fans were dying to see another imperial walker battle - we've got our fix there. Seeing Vader plow through a hallway of rebel soldiers is fan service.

I certainly think its fan wank... each to their own. The walkers in R1 didn't serve any disernabal plot point other than as a call back to TESB. They certainly didn't serve the function of the walkers on Hoth. They presented little peril (IMO). So why include them, other than a "cool - imperial walkers" moment (rhetorical question as I know why they were included). IF they'd actually presented a threat, which the protagonists had to overcome (a la TESB) I'd agree with you (perhaps that was something edited out of the final cut?)... but they were just downed by simple laser fire.

They were window dressing which wasn't needed... although, as already suggested, if they'd have been more integral to the scene, they could have been a great edition. And yes - as much as I enjoyed seeing Vader back, I think ultimately it made R1 a lesser film. Give him/Tarkin their own film and allow the new villains the screen time to be developed. Krennic was a causality of that.

This is small stuff because I enjoyed the film overall (infinitely better than The Force Awakens) ... but as already stated, it's my critique as to why R1 doesn't get close to the originals in terms of quality/feel. It feels like a good live action version of a Clone Wars/Rebels episode for me (which isn't meant as an insult as I generally like those shows)... as it feels it's using plot points/musical cues/existing iconography in very similar ways.

The walkers in R1 (...) presented little peril. (...) IF they'd actually presented a threat, which the protagonists had to overcome (a la TESB) I'd agree with you (perhaps that was something edited out of the final cut?)...

Well, then you must agree with CoGro, because the walkers actually DID present a threat. They were sent against rebel foot soldiers and would crush them in no time -even Baze's rocket launcher was useless against them. The fact that several X-wing fighters managed to go through the gate in the very last moment before it was closed was an unexpected turn of tide for the Imperials. And, obviously, an exciting plot twist, not fan service.

And about the walkers, in technical terms: the way I see it AT-ATs are like tanks and AT-ACTs are like APCs (well, they carry containers, not personnel, but you know what I mean: they're fine against hand weapons and useless against anything stronger than that).

Original ideas? What next? C'mon... are we to dismiss a criticism just because some fans don't want the new films to regurgitate the same characters/concepts ad nauseam? Is this the 'new' hipster thing to do? To not tolerate any critique of the new films? I thought Rogue One was too concerned with, what I believed to be, uneseresary iconography. Be it Tarkin, Vader or the unessersary cameo of Princess Leia. I didn't hate the film, I enjoyed it.

Get some perspective please... The way it's looking I fully expect the Han Solo film to feature Greedo, Boba Fett, Lando losing the Falcon to Solo, Han making the Kessel run and being given the smuggling job by Jabba... before ending with Han going to the cantina for a quick drink. Now some will believe all those elements will make it 'better', because it's fan service right? And some of us think it's unesersary when there's literally a galaxy of other things to portray.

Original ideas? What next? C'mon... are we to dismiss a criticism just because some fans don't want the new films to regurgitate the same characters/concepts ad nauseam? Is this the 'new' hipster thing to do? To not tolerate any critique of the new films? I thought Rogue One was too concerned with, what I believed to be, uneseresary iconography. Be it Tarkin, Vader or the unessersary cameo of Princess Leia. I didn't hate the film, I enjoyed it.

Get some perspective please... The way it's looking I fully expect the Han Solo film to feature Greedo, Boba Fett, Lando losing the Falcon to Solo, Han making the Kessel run and being given the smuggling job by Jabba... before ending with Han going to the cantina for a quick drink. Now some will believe all those elements will make it 'better', because it's fan service right? And some of us think it's unesersary when there's literally a galaxy of other things to portray.

If we are following Hans story... would any of that be unworthy of showing? I get your point, but when I watch a documentary of Churchill, it always focuses on the early-mid 40's... because thats the interesting story.

Original ideas? What next? C'mon... are we to dismiss a criticism just because some fans don't want the new films to regurgitate the same characters/concepts ad nauseam? Is this the 'new' hipster thing to do? To not tolerate any critique of the new films? I thought Rogue One was too concerned with, what I believed to be, uneseresary iconography. Be it Tarkin, Vader or the unessersary cameo of Princess Leia. I didn't hate the film, I enjoyed it.

Get some perspective please... The way it's looking I fully expect the Han Solo film to feature Greedo, Boba Fett, Lando losing the Falcon to Solo, Han making the Kessel run and being given the smuggling job by Jabba... before ending with Han going to the cantina for a quick drink. Now some will believe all those elements will make it 'better', because it's fan service right? And some of us think it's unesersary when there's literally a galaxy of other things to portray.

Yes.

When I watch the Han Solo film I want (actually need) to see the Falcon, Lando, and absolutely the Kessel Run. In fact, prepare yourself to see all things happen. Please also tell me you are aware Chewie will also feature

I really don't get where you're coming from? Rogue One was full of new additions to the lore - shore troopers, death troopers, AT-ACT's, U-Wings, Blue Squadron, Hammerhead Corvettes - at the same time combining with some characters, vehicles, and locations were are all familiar with. This was done with great effect imo.

Lastly, the use of Tarkin/Vader was absolutely instrumental in putting this story together. How can you even tell this story without their inclusion??

Original ideas? What next? C'mon... are we to dismiss a criticism just because some fans don't want the new films to regurgitate the same characters/concepts ad nauseam? Is this the 'new' hipster thing to do? To not tolerate any critique of the new films? I thought Rogue One was too concerned with, what I believed to be, uneseresary iconography. Be it Tarkin, Vader or the unessersary cameo of Princess Leia. I didn't hate the film, I enjoyed it.

Get some perspective please... The way it's looking I fully expect the Han Solo film to feature Greedo, Boba Fett, Lando losing the Falcon to Solo, Han making the Kessel run and being given the smuggling job by Jabba... before ending with Han going to the cantina for a quick drink. Now some will believe all those elements will make it 'better', because it's fan service right? And some of us think it's unesersary when there's literally a galaxy of other things to portray.

If we are following Hans story... would any of that be unworthy of showing? I get your point, but when I watch a documentary of Churchill, it always focuses on the early-mid 40's... because thats the interesting story.

I personally think cinema is best when it's telling new stories, even within a fictional existing/established universe, rather than just re-telling the same thing over again. At this moment in time, I'm not even sure Lucasfilm would make a new Star Wars film without stormtroopers and X-Wings featuring heavily in it... and as much as I love stormtroopers and X-Wings, I think that's a shame given the infinite possibilities that present themselves within the SW sandbox... but that's just my view of course. And in terms of Churchill, his early career was extremely interesting, specifically his time in the Sudan, but of course he's more famous for being the PM... and obviously focusing on his time as PM doesn't nesersarily make for the better doc. even if it's the path of least resistance

Original ideas? What next? C'mon... are we to dismiss a criticism just because some fans don't want the new films to regurgitate the same characters/concepts ad nauseam? Is this the 'new' hipster thing to do? To not tolerate any critique of the new films? I thought Rogue One was too concerned with, what I believed to be, uneseresary iconography. Be it Tarkin, Vader or the unessersary cameo of Princess Leia. I didn't hate the film, I enjoyed it.

Get some perspective please... The way it's looking I fully expect the Han Solo film to feature Greedo, Boba Fett, Lando losing the Falcon to Solo, Han making the Kessel run and being given the smuggling job by Jabba... before ending with Han going to the cantina for a quick drink. Now some will believe all those elements will make it 'better', because it's fan service right? And some of us think it's unesersary when there's literally a galaxy of other things to portray.

Yes.

When I watch the Han Solo film I want (actually need) to see the Falcon, Lando, and absolutely the Kessel Run. In fact, prepare yourself to see all things happen. Please also tell me you are aware Chewie will also feature

I really don't get where you're coming from? Rogue One was full of new additions to the lore - shore troopers, death troopers, AT-ACT's, U-Wings, Blue Squadron, Hammerhead Corvettes - at the same time combining with some characters, vehicles, and locations were are all familiar with. This was done with great effect imo.

Lastly, the use of Tarkin/Vader was absolutely instrumental in putting this story together. How can you even tell this story without their inclusion??

Of course you "don't get where I'm coming from"... that's patently obvious in your response. I don't particular want dozens of Star Wars films filled with Death Stars and Darth Vader, no matter how many different coloured buttons they put on Vader's chest plate. If that works for you then great, I'm sure you'll be counting down the hours to Rogue Two. I'd just like something with a bit more creativity/imagination.

Of course you "don't get where I'm coming from"... that's patently obvious in your response. I don't particular want dozens of Star Wars films filled with Death Stars and Darth Vader, no matter how many different coloured buttons they put on Vader's chest plate. If that works for you then great, I'm sure you'll be counting down the hours to Rogue Two. I'd just like something with a bit more creativity/imagination.

Now you're just making stuff up. What makes you think we're gonna get "dozens of Star Wars films filled with Death Stars and Darth Vader". There has only been 2, yeah 2, confirmed stand alone films. One is on it's way to making metric fucktons of galactic credits (you may have noticed a Death Star and Darth Vader in this one) and the other is a young Han Solo film.

I'm sure LFL are playing it safe starting off the anthology films with stories that include characters/locations etc we are familiar with - it's the right decision. With Rogue One testing the water (and succeeding) I'm sure we will get a more diversified movie slate down the road that will delve deeper into the lore that will have all the "creativity/imagination" you can only dream about.

SI is correct. Disney has boasted a conservative business model, in all aspects of their properties, for 50+ years.

You do what's safe and what works. When you've built your nest egg up, then you have room play and do things that are "experimental" and no, not experimental by our standards, experimental by conservative standards. Keep in mind, Disney has not paid off it's 4.3 billion dollar purchase of LFL. Until that happens, you won't see experimental.

Of course you "don't get where I'm coming from"... that's patently obvious in your response. I don't particular want dozens of Star Wars films filled with Death Stars and Darth Vader, no matter how many different coloured buttons they put on Vader's chest plate. If that works for you then great, I'm sure you'll be counting down the hours to Rogue Two. I'd just like something with a bit more creativity/imagination.

Now you're just making stuff up. What makes you think we're gonna get "dozens of Star Wars films filled with Death Stars and Darth Vader". There has only been 2, yeah 2, confirmed stand alone films. One is on it's way to making metric fucktons of galactic credits (you may have noticed a Death Star and Darth Vader in this one) and the other is a young Han Solo film.

I'm sure LFL are playing it safe starting off the anthology films with stories that include characters/locations etc we are familiar with - it's the right decision. With Rogue One testing the water (and succeeding) I'm sure we will get a more diversified movie slate down the road that will delve deeper into the lore that will have all the "creativity/imagination" you can only dream about.

btw, I've seen Rogue Two. Back in 1977. Good flick.

"Making stuff up"? I'm extrapolating based on the data... the data being the two new Star Wars films, which both rely heavily (too heavily in my opinion) on the iconography of stormtroopers, Death Stars, X-Wings etc. at the expense of story/characterisation (my opinion). Yours is just wishful thinking based on no evidence, that I'm aware of. Anyone with any understanding of how Hollywood operates, would understand that the success of The Force Awakens and Rogue One is much more likely to make Disney conservative about future films, not experimental/creatively forward looking. They will be much more likely to, for example, forgo any idea of a standalone Obi-Wan movie being a smaller/spaghetti western style piece (which it would automatically lend itself to) but instead will probably gravitate towards something much more populist e.g. featuring Darth Maul and Darth Vader mash up no doubt (and no, I'm not stating that films shouldn't be popular). You'll probably love that approach... I just happen to think it makes the SW galaxy smaller as the films look inwards.

SI is correct. Disney has boasted a conservative business model, in all aspects of their properties, for 50+ years.

You do what's safe and what works. When you've built your nest egg up, then you have room play and do things that are "experimental" and no, not experimental by our standards, experimental by conservative standards. Keep in mind, Disney has not paid off it's 4.3 billion dollar purchase of LFL. Until that happens, you won't see experimental.

I agree with you... and I understand the practical approach Disney are making to recoup their investment (even if I don't like the approach). The point is that was I citing this as the reason why I thought Rogue One was a fair SW film rather than a very good one. That conservatism, IMO, was on screen. I thought characterisation was squeezed in favour of showing Tarkin/Vader etc. Some elements of continuity seemed less important than ensuring screen time for cameos. I believe that's a fair criticism... one doesn't have to agree, but it seems some people get a bit too defensive of 'Nu Star Wars'.

Best scene of the movie nobody is talking about is Galen's holo-message intercut with the Death Star destroying Jedha. Great performances in that scene (and great writing), chilling music (maybe one of the best pieces of the entire score), and incredibly haunting imagery of the Death Star blowing up the city.

Best scene of the movie nobody is talking about is Galen's holo-message intercut with the Death Star destroying Jedha. Great performances in that scene (and great writing), chilling music (maybe one of the best pieces of the entire score), and incredibly haunting imagery of the Death Star blowing up the city.

Absolutely.

You really get the feeling of dread in this scene as Galen reveals his deception. All the while Jedha is crumbling there is a real urgency to this scene which is shot & edited so well and the performances are great.